SUKHDEV Vs. RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is filed against the order dated 23.10.2015 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Pathankot as well as against the order dated 16.5.2016 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Pathankot, vide which, the petition filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act'), was allowed and the appeal against the said order was dismissed.

(2.) While praying for setting aside the orders by the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised twofold arguments. Firstly the averments made in the rent petition were not in consonance with the mandatory provisions of the Act. As per Section 13-A of the Act, in case the landlord is pleading a bonafide requirement of shop on behalf of his son, it is mandatory to mention that the requirement of his son is genuine and bonafide and his son is not occupying any other non-residential building in the urban area concerned and nor owns any such non-residential building and since the respondent-landlord in the present case has not mentioned the said fact, the eviction petition does not satisfy the mandatory ingredients of Section-13 of the Act. Secondly, the respondent-landlord could not prove bonafide need because the respondent-landlord even as per their own showing is owner of at least two shops and moreover, his son, for whom the personal necessity is being pleaded is duly employed and earning well. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh and another vs. Jit Ram and another, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 390; and the judgments of this Court in the cases of Rajiv Gupta vs. Jeewan Ram, 2015(1) RCR (Civil) 762, Sukhdev Singh vs. Lajwanti passed in CR-5156-2015 decided on 1.12.2018; Brij Bhushan and another vs. Sanjay Harjal and another, 2015(2) RCR (Civil) 68; and Babli vs. Kumari Ruchi Bansal, 2017(1) RCR (Civil) 152 to contend that in a case where the landlord seeks eviction of the tenant from the non-residential premises for the use of his son for business, it would be mandatory for the son to plead and prove that he was not occupying any such building and has not vacated such building without sufficient cause.

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties heard at length.